AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350P and AMD Radeon PRO W7800 occupy separate functional territories within AMD's professional lineup, and the recorded data makes the split clear. The MI350P is an accelerator without any display outputs, built around a 144 GB HBM3e memory subsystem with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. That configuration targets data-center compute workloads where memory capacity and transfer speed dominate. The W7800, by contrast, is a workstation card with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 32 GB GDDR6 frame buffer on a 256-bit bus, and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Its role is interactive graphics, rendering, and compute tasks that also need a display connection.

The benchmark data shows the W7800 holds a 97th percentile position versus all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 164,894. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 at 165,217 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094 (0.7% behind), the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB at 162,504 (1.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X at 168,574 (2.2% behind). The MI350P has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, so direct measured performance cannot be stated. What the data does establish is that the MI350P wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw shading-unit count, while the W7800 wins on clock speeds, pixel throughput, API support, and measured compute performance.

The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 and 36.04 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. For FP32 workloads, the W7800 is numerically ahead by roughly 25.6% based on the stated figures. For FP16, the W7800's advantage grows to about 151% because its shader array executes two FP16 operations per clock. The MI350P trades that throughput for a memory system that is 14.2 times larger in capacity and 14.2 times higher in bandwidth, which matters for models and datasets that exceed 32 GB.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural families. The MI350P uses CDNA 4.0, AMD's compute-focused architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC with 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die. The W7800 uses RDNA 3.0, the graphics-focused architecture, on a 5 nm TSMC process with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density figures reflect this split: the MI350P packs 61.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while the W7800 reaches 109.1 million per square millimeter because of its smaller, denser design.

The MI350P's chip is labeled "MI350 128CU" and contains 8192 shading units, 512 texture mapping units, and zero ROPs. Its pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s, which aligns with its lack of display outputs and rasterization hardware. The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with 4480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray tracing cores. Its pixel rate is 323.2 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 707.0 GTexel/s. The MI350P has a higher texture rate at 1,126.4 GTexel/s, but no pixel rate to speak of, reinforcing that it is not designed for rasterized graphics output.

Memory technology separates the two as well. The MI350P uses HBM3e running at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed across an 8192-bit bus, yielding 8.19 TB/s. The W7800 uses GDDR6 at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed across a 256-bit bus, yielding 576.0 GB/s. The MI350P's memory bandwidth is 14.2 times the W7800's, a gap that reflects the HBM3e stack versus conventional GDDR6. The W7800 compensates with higher clock speeds: its base clock is 1895 MHz and boost is 2525 MHz, versus the MI350P's 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost.

API support differs materially. The MI350P lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A, meaning it exposes no graphics APIs. The W7800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. This makes the W7800 the only one of the two that can run conventional graphics applications or serve as a display adapter. The MI350P is a pure compute accelerator, and its PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus the W7800's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface reflects its data-center positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database, so the comparison must draw on the individual recorded figures. The W7800's Geekbench OpenCL score is 154,366 and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 175,422. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 164,894. The MI350P has no benchmark entries, so its measured performance cannot be compared numerically. The data instead supports a comparison of architectural capabilities and stated throughput figures.

In FP32 compute, the W7800's 45.25 TFLOPS is 25.6% higher than the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS. In FP16, the W7800's 90.50 TFLOPS is 151% higher than the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS. The MI350P offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, which means it does not accelerate half-precision work beyond its FP32 rate. The W7800's 2:1 FP16 ratio doubles its half-precision throughput, a clear advantage for workloads that can use FP16 arithmetic.

Texture throughput favors the MI350P: 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s, a 59.3% advantage. Pixel throughput favors the W7800 exclusively, since the MI350P has no pixel rate. The W7800's 323.2 GPixel/s rasterization capability makes it the only card here that can drive displays or render graphics frames. Memory bandwidth heavily favors the MI350P at 8.19 TB/s versus 576.0 GB/s, a 14.2 times difference. Memory capacity follows the same ratio: 144 GB versus 32 GB.

The W7800's nearest rival data places it in a tight competitive cluster. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500 and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, while leading the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5% and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X by 2.2%. These deltas are small, indicating that the W7800 performs at parity with several established workstation and data-center cards. The MI350P has no such rival data recorded, so its competitive standing cannot be quantified from the database.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two cards differ.

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350P | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 73,000 million | 57,700 million |

| Die size | 1190 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor density | 61.3M / mm² | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 1895 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2200 MHz | 2525 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 144 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 8192 | 4480 |

| TMUs | 512 | 280 |

| ROPs | 0 | 128 |

| Ray tracing cores | Not listed | 70 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 323.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 1,126.4 GTexel/s | 707.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 36.04 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 260 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 16-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 600 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm, 111 mm, 40 mm | 280 mm, 110 mm, 40 mm |

| Release date | 2026-05-06 | 2023-04-12 |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 2,499 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350P has 8.19 TB/s from HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, which is 14.2 times the W7800's 576.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Can the MI350P output video to a display?

A: No. The MI350P has no display outputs and lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 25.6% higher than the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS.

Q: How does the W7800 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7800 scores 164,894 on average. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500, 0.7% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, and 2.2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested 1000 W PSU and a single 16-pin connector. The W7800 has a TDP of 260 W with a suggested 600 W PSU and two 8-pin connectors.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The W7800 includes 70 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate. The MI350P lists no ray tracing cores and has no graphics API support.

The Verdict

The database points to two different buyers. The AMD Instinct MI350P is for compute environments where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors. Its 144 GB of HBM3e at 8.19 TB/s, 8192 shading units, and 1,126.4 GTexel/s texture rate serve large-scale inference, training, or data processing that cannot fit in 32 GB. Its lack of display outputs, N/A graphics APIs, and 600 W TDP confirm that it belongs in a server chassis, not on a workstation desk. The absence of recorded benchmark scores means its real-world speed is unverified in this database, but its architectural specifications position it as a high-capacity accelerator.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is the workstation card. It has a 97th percentile standing, an average score of 164,894, and sits within 2.2% of four established rivals. Its 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 give it higher compute throughput than the MI350P in both precisions. Its 323.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, 70 ray tracing cores, and full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support make it suitable for graphics work, rendering, and display-driven tasks. Its 32 GB GDDR6 and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest next to the MI350P, but sufficient for many professional workloads.

The verdict follows the data: choose the MI350P when the workload demands more than 32 GB of memory or bandwidth beyond 576.0 GB/s, and when display output is irrelevant. Choose the W7800 when measured performance, graphics API support, ray tracing, pixel throughput, or a display connection matters. The MI350P wins on memory scale and texture rate; the W7800 wins on clock speed, FP32, FP16, pixel rate, API compatibility, and efficiency. Both are valid, but they are not substitutes for each other.